1A. Successful democracy requires people be able to vote with their money, but with social programs, you are given certain provisions and not free to make your own choices (with options) in the market. Thus, welfare programs disrupt market equilibrium.

2. Social programs (like welfare) wind up causing more harm than good; specifically Section 8 housing has led to problematic crime areas, since poor people were all lumped together, instead of being given the option to expand with more disposable income.

3. Welfare discourages work, while NIT provides both a safety net and the incentive to keep working.

4. Expanding on point #2, Pro argues that social programs disproportionately impact minorities and cause a minority wage gap.

In Round 1, Con responds with the following contentions:

1. NIT would not promote a solid work ethic. This directly corresponds with Pro's point #3. Con points out that inspiring work ethic is also a problem under the current system; however, he suggests that welfare is preferable because it does not provide "money for nothing" but rather money for something specific. He later on provides some sources to back this up.

2. Con claims that people receive more money (benefits) from welfare.

3. Con writes that if people have the opportunity to spend money on things that aren't necessities (like food) it doesn't address the intent of social programs that look to provide these things, specifically. I suppose this addresses Pro's points 1A and 1B about NIT's affect on the market.

4. In response to Pro's point #2, Con seemingly agrees with some problematic effects of social programs (like the creation of ghettos) and says NIT wouldn't solve this. However he doesn't explain why not, whereas Pro did explain that people would have choices under NIT (i.e. where to live) as opposed to being restricted by welfare provisions.

5. Con argues that NIT leads to familial strife.

6. Con concludes that we need to focus on balancing wages, and not just providing money to impoverished people. However this is a bare assertion and what the debate is essentially about. It doesn't address Pro's point on minorities either.

-- Review --

Con does not deny that using money to purchase things is a useful component of democracy, nor does he contest that NIT allows you to allocate funding to what's important to the individual (and choose where to live, what to invest or spend on, etc.). Instead he says that if people don't spend money on specific things - like food and housing - it won't fix what welfare ties to solve in the first place, which is providing these things that are required to live. Thus he believes the government would still have to provide these things in addition to NIT, or that these things will not be accounted for by irresponsible recipients.

But Pro claims that people will make rational choices in the market when it comes to their survival.

Pro responds to Con's work ethic supposition by saying that NIT still provides people with money even while they work, while welfare recipients lose benefits upon work thus discouraging welfare recipients from working.

In response to Con's point 5 (family strife) Pro argues that NIT promotes marriage; people would get married in order to increase their monetary receipts.

Pro accuses Con of a "red herring" in bringing up wages but I don't think that's the case. Indeed the NIT is supposed to replace things like minimum wage, etc., so if Con argues that those programs are superior then he is only trying to negate the resolution which makes sense.

I should also note the back and forth commentary on Friedman's source was also not a strong focal point in this debate.

Really it comes down to this: should people be given money (instead of social program assistance) to allocate how they see fit, or should the status quo remain the standard? Pro offered some benefits to market diversion, but Con argued that welfare recipients receive more in specific benefits than they could purchase on their own with NIT.

Pro argued that consumers can make rational choices, but Con insists that people would use NIT irresponsibly and spend it on unwise things or abuse the system (like not work). Con challenges the idea that people behave rationally. This is where he should have expanded not necessarily with sources, but straightforward explanations about poor choices and exploiting government assistance. For instance he could have pointed out using NIT money for drugs, specifically, but failed to make a particular example. Still he did bring up this idea.

Con also insists that NIT discourages work, and proves that Pro is incorrect - you don't stop receiving welfare benefits when you start working (which is true). You need to make a certain amount of money before losing benefits. In Round 3, Pro insists that you don't get welfare benefits when you start working but that is untrue.

Pro also insists that rational choice theory proves people will make smart decisions.

-- Conclusion --

Overall, I believe Con won the point on work ethic. Pro provided misinformation about welfare and ignored Con's explanation proving otherwise. As Con pointed out, Pro must prove that NIT is superior to the status quo.

Con writes, "The main issue with welfare is that people abuse the system and get benefits that they shouldn't be getting. But again, the negative income tax would not do any better." This was an interesting argument. Pro argues that people will make rational economic decisions. Yet even if we accept this is true, assuming it is rational to spend funds on food, health care and housing (which welfare provides), why is this better than the status quo?

Pro argued it would be good for not manipulating the market. However he did not expand enough on this at all in terms of overall market effect (price manipulation) and similarly Con did not treat it as a serious contention.

Con ultimately loses this point, however, in R4 when he claims that it is people's irrationality that causes poverty. Pro argued (and explained) why this is not the case. Con could have won this point by showing how people abuse the current welfare standard, so we should assume they will abuse NIT to an even greater degree. Instead, he made a fallacious claim about rationality and poverty.

Since Con has won the point on work ethic, but did not successfully refute Pro's statement on rational purchase (which he could have used to win), those contentions essentially cancel each other out. I also don't think the arguments on marriage and familial strife were particularly strong; they also cancelled each other out and were not influential enough in this debate.

The remaining arguments that Pro pushed forth were points 2/4 - that welfare causes more harm than good, and can cause disproportionate minority poverty due to the unintended consequences and repercussions of social programs. Again Con seemingly agrees with some problematic effects of social programs (like the creation of ghettos) and says NIT wouldn't solve this. However he doesn't explain why not, whereas Pro did explain that people would have choices under NIT (i.e. where to live) as opposed to being restricted by welfare provisions.

Pro does win the argument in showing how NIT could have a superior impact in at least 1-2 regards (fixing market equilibrium and providing choice which discourages discrimination), vs. Con's one winning point on NIT most likely reducing work ethic.

Thanks for the vote Danielle. That was actually really well thought out. You understood my arguments real well and my opponents. I wish all the other voters took time to understand the debate they voted on.